Unity Interface in 10.10 Netbook Edition
tarunkhanna at gmail.com
Sat Oct 30 20:46:10 UTC 2010
At some point this thread digressed from the original topic, but I guess
As suggested earlier I posted my concern on the ubuntu devel mailing list.
Apparently all of them are known issues and they are working on them.
I switched the desktop to regular Ubuntu Desktop and am happy once again.
There was a huge performance improvement, even flash plays a lot smoother. I
never realized that poor performance of flash was due to Unity.
A not for all the noobs. Please DO NOT install the Netbook Edition on your
netbooks or nettops. It's pathetically slow and doing so runs the risk of
giving you a bad impression of Ubuntu and Linux. Ubuntu is an amazing
distribution of Linux and Linux in general is awesome.
Thanks for all the comments.
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Glenn Holmer <shadowm at lyonlabs.org>
> > On Sat, 2010-10-30 at 01:20 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
> >> > Anyone know if this "Hurd" is more than vaporware? I mean after ten
> >> > of "active development".....
> >> IMHO, it was wind from the backside of Stallman trying to be relevant,
> >> long after the horse left the barn, when Linus made his gift to the
> >> world. Linus made it happen. Linux will become what we allow it to
> >> become. Just as in politics. Ric
> > http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd-and-linux.html
> It's a good story. It's not actually entirely *true* but it's a good story.
> Yes, when the GNU Project decided to write a kernel, Linux did not
> exist yet. True.
> But there /was/ a free and Free Unix kernel that *did* already exist.
> They considered it, looked at it, decided not to adopt it and went for
> something else.
> The result was that the Free Unix-alike OS was not ready and usable
> except for specialists until about 1996 or '97 and not by only
> moderately-technical types until '98 when KDE 1.0 appeared.
> The kernel that the GNU Project decided not to go with was BSD.
> Although this was long before FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and so on, BSD
> had existed for 15 years or more and was widely used (with full
> sources available) in the US academic system. Unfortunately, it
> contained copyright code from AT&T and thus was not Free.
> But the GNU team didn't want the rest of the OS - they already had
> utilities, a compiler, an editor, etc. Most of a "userland". They just
> wanted a kernel.
> They could have gone for the BSD kernel, sorted out the licensing
> difficulties and started work on a complete Free Unix at the end of
> the '90s - but they chose not to. They decided to write their own, and
> worse still, chose a particularly ambitious design (not that they were
> to know that at the time).
> The statement on gnu.org carefully omits that bit, which is a shame,
> as it's rather important.
> Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
> Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
> Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
> AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lproven at hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ubuntu-users